2: JERUSALEM
2: JERUSALEM
Jesus was crucified outside the walls, but close enough to the city to provide a public spectacle. All four evangelists name the site the ‘Place of a Skull’, and all save Luke give its Aramaic name ‘Golgotha’. Although the name is sometimes explained in reference to the shape of the hill on which Jesus died, none of the gospels refers to a hill. A later tradition links the name with Adam's skull, which was said to be buried there; in one version of the legend, Christ's blood trickled down to the skull and so redeemed Adam and the whole race. Gibson and Taylor argue that, since the present rock of Calvary is ‘too narrow to permit three crosses, and is too steep to allow easy access’, Jerome was probably right to explain the name as a common term for a place of execution. The two authors accordingly conclude that Golgotha was the name of the place where Jesus was crucified (all four gospels speak of the ‘place (topos) of a Skull’); the mound of rock was a prominent feature of the area, but not the very spot of the crucifixion.
John speaks of the sites of Calvary and the Tomb as a ‘garden’; Cyril himself confirms this tradition. There are however signs that the Tomb was set within a quarry. Not only does Cyril add the word ‘quarried (lelatomemenon)’ to Luke's reference to a ‘tomb carved from the rock’ (en mnemati laxeutoi), but archaeological investigations of what has long been identified as the site of the crucifixion and the burial suggest that, within an extensive quarry covering an area of 200m by 150m, a band of inferior rock was left unquarried, and used partly as a place of execution, partly as a place of burial, and partly as a cultivated garden. Although in Jesus’ time it lay outside the city walls, when the walls were redrawn in the middle of the first century AD, it now lay inside them. Gibson and Taylor speak of ‘numerous other examples of Early Roman tombs near Jerusalem which were similarly cut into the scarps of abandoned or partly disused stone quarries’ (GT 61). The so-called Tombs of Zachariah (second century BC) and Absalom (first century AD), which are still plainly visible from the city walls, are Jewish examples of elaborate tombs carved out of the living rock. Commenting on the prophetic text ‘in the shelter of the rock’ (Cant 2.14 (LXX)), Cyril explains that the text:
refers to the shelter which at that time stood in front of the door to the Saviour's tomb, and had been hollowed from the very rock in the way that was customary here in front of tombs. It is no longer visible because the front chamber was then cut away to give the tomb the decoration it has today. (Cat. 14.9)
When the Roman Emperor Titus crushed the Jewish revolt in AD 70, he destroyed the city of Jerusalem. The gospels record Jesus’ prophecy that ‘not a stone will be left upon a stone’ (Mt 24.2), but the words are not literally true, for at least some of Herod the Great's gigantic masonry was left in place, and can still be seen at the Western Wall of the Temple and elsewhere. In Cyril's day even more of the Temple walls were still standing, so that he believed that the prophecy was still awaiting its fulfilment before the coming of the Antichrist:
The Antichrist will come when in the Jewish Temple a stone does not remain on a stone, as the Saviour proclaimed. For when their age leads all the stones to collapse or they are knocked down with a view to rebuilding or for some other reasons—I am not referring to the stones of the outer perimeter, but those of the Temple inside, where the cherubim stood—then he is to come amid all his lying signs and portents. (Cat. 15.15)
In 130–132 Hadrian refounded Jerusalem as a pagan Roman city, thus provoking the second Jewish revolt led by Bar Kochba in 135. Hadrian gave the new foundation the name Aelia Capitolina: ‘Aelia’ after the Emperor's second name, and ‘Capitolina’ in honour of the three Roman ‘capitoline’ gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. There is no certainty about the location of the customary temple honouring these three gods: Gibson and Taylor place it to the north of the Temple Mount, on the site of the fort of the Antonia; they cite the evidence of the third-century historian Cassius Dio and a statement by Jerome that an ‘idol of Jupiter’ stood on the Mount. On the Mount itself two statues of emperors seem to have been set, that of Hadrian being on the very site of the Holy of Holies. For the forum of the new city a site next to the quarry was chosen; the quarry itself was filled in and paved over. It seems to have been used as a sacred precinct for Venus, with a temple for that goddess at its northern end. Eusebius, recalling what he had seen with his own eyes, relates that over the cave which had served as the Lord's tomb:
above the ground they constructed what could be described with terrible truth as a tomb for souls, building a gloomy alcove for dead idols in honour of the licentious demon Aphrodite [Venus], and then pouring cursed libations there over impious and profane altars. (Vit. Const. 3.26)
Gibson and Taylor conclude there was ‘a temple precinct made up of several shrines containing idols pertaining to the multifaceted cult of Venus’. This goddess in fact seems to have been much more prominent in the devotion of the pagan city than the Capitoline trinity after which it was named.
Though the level of the pavement was raised, completely covering the Tomb, it appears that the tip of the rock of Calvary remained visible, and was crowned with a statue of Venus, for Eusebius, in an early work written before Constantine's building began, reports that Golgotha is ‘pointed out in Aelia to the north of Mount Sion’, while Jerome later states that ‘on the rock of the cross a statue of Venus made of marble was venerated by the pagans’. Coins show a statue of the goddess standing on what Gibson and Taylor believe to be a ‘rocky outcrop’. The visible rock would help to pin-point Christian traditions concerning the site.
The main credit for rescuing the holy places from these profanations belongs to Constantine, but his mother Helen took a part in the process. Eusebius describes how this intrepid old lady, when in her seventies or even her eighties, travelled to Palestine,
an old woman with the vigour of youth and outstanding good sense, to visit the Holy Land and to inspect the nations, cities and peoples with the wise benevolence which befitted an empress. When she had offered the worship which was due to the Saviour's footprints, in accordance with the prophetic text: ‘Let us worship at the place where his feet stood’ (Ps 131 (132).7), she immediately bequeathed to posterity the fruit of her personal devotion. (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 3.42)
Eusebius attributes to her the foundation of the churches at the site of the Nativity at Bethlehem, and on the Mount of Olives at the site of the ascension and of the cave where ‘the Saviour of the universe’ was truly said ‘to initiate his votaries into the secret mysteries’ (Vit. Const. 3.43); her son supported her in these enterprises. However, the construction of the third set of buildings, those at the Holy Sepulchre, Eusebius attributes to Constantine alone (Vit. Const. 3.25–40). Ambrose, however, and after him Socrates and Sozomen, give Helen a share of the credit, as did the pilgrim Egeria, who attributed the decoration of the buildings to Constantine ‘under the supervision of his mother’. However, the fact that Cyril in the middle of the century, while speaking of the cross in two different works, makes no mention of Helen must cast some doubt on her involvement. As Eusebius narrates the events, the Emperor,
being assuredly inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not allow the place we have spoken of to remain hidden by all sorts of polluted material, as the enemy plotted, and to be left forgotten and unknown; he would not yield to the ill-will of those who were responsible for this action. Calling upon God to work with him, he ordered the place to be cleared, for he believed that through his own efforts the ground which the enemy had defiled should be foremost in enjoying the fruits of the good God's magnificence. (Vit. Const. 3.26)
The site of Calvary was marked by the statue of Venus set on the top of the rock; in the two centuries since the building of Aelia, the site of the Tomb seems to have been forgotten. Consequently Constantine's original plan seems to have been simply to remove the pagan pollution from Calvary, knocking down the buildings, destroying the idols, and removing the rubble. But, not content with this,
the Emperor, under divine inspiration, ordered his workmen to excavate to a great depth the very soil which formed the foundations, and to remove it with all the rubble to some place a great distance away, because it had been contaminated by the bloodshed of demonic worship. (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 3.27)
What followed next seems to have been unforeseen. When all the material had been removed and the original level reached,
Then, beyond all hope, the sacred and all-holy memorial of the Saviour's resurrection came to light, and the cave which is the holy of holies began to reveal the image of the Saviour's return to life. (Vit, Const. 3.28)
The main church which Constantine subsequently built on the site became known by this name ‘Memorial’ (Martyrium).
This account by Eusebius of these events is remarkable for his systematic refusal to speak of Golgotha or the wood of the cross. He says nothing of the rock of Calvary so dishonoured by the statue of Venus which crowned it, or of its uncovering, or of its subsequent decoration and integration into the general scheme of the buildings. He describes the site as ‘the most blessed spot of the Saviour's resurrection in Jerusalem’, ‘that divine memorial of immortality’ (Vit. Const. 3.25, 26). Constantine's building is ‘a house of prayer, worthy of God, around (amphi) the cave of salvation’ (Vit. Const. 3.29). Cyril, by contrast, repeatedly refers to the events connected with Calvary and takes every opportunity of drawing his listeners’ attention to the rock.
Constantine reacted with such speed, says Eusebius, that it was as if he had planned to build a church there all along. He instructed the governors of the Eastern provinces to erect a sumptuous building there at his own expense. He also sent instructions to the Bishop of Jerusalem, Macarius, in a letter which Eusebius quotes at length. It begins as follows:
Nicetas [Victor] Constantine the Great, Augustus, to Macarius. So great is our Saviour's grace that it seems impossible to find words to do justice to the present marvel. For it truly surpasses all wonder how the token of that most holy Passion lay hidden for so many years buried under the earth, until through the destruction of our common enemy it was destined to shine once more on his liberated servants. For if everyone throughout the world with a reputation for wisdom came together with the purpose of making a pronouncement that was worthy of the event, they would not be able to match the smallest part of the truth. For the nature of this wonder transcends every nature capable of human reasoning as much as heavenly things are by nature more powerful than earthly. Accordingly this has always been my one and only aim: that, just as the true faith is revealing itself every day in new wonders, so all our souls, with all virtue and harmonious eagerness, should become more earnestly devoted to the holy law. So I think it is clear to everyone, and I want you especially to be convinced of this, that there is no other cause that is dearer to me than to erect beautiful buildings to grace that holy place which, by God's command, I have freed from the weight of the foul idol which had been set on top of it—that place which from the beginning was made holy by God's judgment, and was revealed as holier still since he brought to light the proof of the Saviour's Passion. (Vit. Const. 3.30)
It is notable that in this letter Constantine, like Cyril but in contrast with Eusebius, places the emphasis on the crucifixion. He makes no explicit mention of the cave-tomb or the resurrection; he describes the object which was so unexpectedly unearthed as ‘the token (gnorisma) of that most holy Passion’, and ‘the proof (pistin) of the Saviour's Passion’.
What was this unexpected find of the token of the Passion? The words can hardly refer to Calvary itself, as the summit of the rock had remained visible for the last two centuries since the foundation of Hadrian's city, and no new marvel could have been revealed when its full height was laid bare. Constantine's words are not well chosen if they are intended to apply to the Tomb, for it is hard to see how a rock cave in a disused quarry could count as proof of the Passion. Eusebius himself hints at the solution to the puzzle in the speech de Laudibus Constantini which he delivered in 336 in honour of the thirtieth anniversary of the Emperor's accession, and which is likely to be a more reliable reflection of Constantine's intentions than the Life, which was published after the Emperor's death. This is the earlier and briefer account of the events:
With regard to the province of Palestine, in the middle of the Jewish royal city, at the very Martyrium of the Saviour, he endowed a huge house of prayer and a holy temple in honour of the saving sign with rich ornament and all kinds of decoration; and the memorial of everlasting memory and the trophy of the great Saviour's victory over death he honoured with embellishments which are too great to be described.
Eusebius then proceeds to speak of the Emperor's munificent treatment of the ‘three mystic caves’, namely of the Nativity, of the Ascension,
and in the one that lay between them, proclaiming the saving victory that followed his whole struggle. The Emperor adorned all these caves, proclaiming the saving sign to all mankind. (Laud. Const. 9: PG 20.1369–72)
It is most natural to understand the ‘saving sign’ in these quotations as a reference to the cross, while the ‘memorial’ is the tomb. Accordingly the ‘token’ and the ‘proof’ of the Passion which the letter speaks of will likewise be the cross. Eusebius himself, despite his reticence in the Life, in his address in praise of Constantine refers to the cross with which the Emperor confronted his opponents as ‘the saving and life-giving sign’; it is ‘a wonder to speak of, wonderful indeed to conceive’ (Laud. Const. 9, 10 (PG 20.1364, 1372)). Cyril's allusions to the wood of the cross in the Letter to Constantius and the Catecheses show that devotion to the holy wood was well established by the middle of the century; the Letter states explicitly that the discovery was made during Constantine's reign. The feast of the finding of the cross was a major celebration in Jerusalem by the last years of Cyril's episcopate, being celebrated on the same day as the dedication of the basilica, and, like Easter and the Epiphany, honoured with an octave (Egeria, Pereg. 48–9).
We have other evidence of Constantine's devotion to the sign of the cross which had led him to victory over Maxentius. Eusebius tells us he used to carry a ‘tabernacle of the cross’ with him on his campaigns, and set up a jewelled golden cross in a prominent position in his palace in Constantinople (Vit. Const. 2.12; 3.49). One long chapter of Eusebius’ de Laudibus Constantini refers repeatedly to the honours the Emperor paid to ‘the saving and life-giving sign’, ‘the sign that brings victory’, ‘the great trophy’ (de Laud. Const. 9 (PG 20.1364–9)). He had such a devotion to Christ's nails that he incorporated one into his helmet and another into his horse's bit. It is the feast of the Passion, rather than the resurrection, which Constantine says in his Speech to the Assembly of the Saints is ‘brighter than the light of the sun, and brings restoration of decayed bodies’. In the course of the same speech he quotes a Sibylline acrostic verse in Greek, the initials of which give the words: ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross’.
Perhaps the finding of the cross took place in this way: Constantine's original plan, as described in his letter to Macarius, had been to honour the site of Calvary, which was marked by the statue of Venus, by freeing it ‘from the weight of the foul idol which had been set on top of it’; this plan was then extended to the clearing away of the foundations and laying bare the bedrock. The work of excavation unexpectedly revealed the cross, which the Emperor then decided to honour by building the basilica of the Martyrium. Later in the process the cave-tomb was discovered and identified, and incorporated into the design, as we shall see.
The earliest description of the buildings is that written in 333–334 by an anonymous pilgrim from Bordeaux, who gives a characteristically jejune account of them when their construction was nearing completion:
but on the left is the hillock (monticulus) of Golgotha, where the Lord was crucified. About a stone's throw from there is the crypt where his body was placed and rose again on the third day. In the same place a basilica (or royal building [dominicum]) has recently been built by order of the Emperor Constantine. It is of wonderful beauty, and has a cistern beside it, from which water is drawn, and a bath beside it, where the infants are washed.
The Pilgrim's impression is thus of the mound of Calvary and the cave-tomb, both presumably set in the open, with the basilica next to them, with a separate baptistery.
The Martyrium was consecrated in 335. The occasion was a double triumph for Eusebius over his orthodox Jerusalem rivals; for not only did he apparently assume the leading role, making ‘elaborate speeches (poikilais…dialexesi)’, but the occasion was taken to readmit Arius and his followers to communion at Constantine's request. Eusebius’ detailed but puzzling description of the now completed buildings in his Life of Constantine can be set between that year and 339, the year of his own death. A tentative plan is sketched out in Figure 1.
Eusebius’ description fills in the details that are missing from the Pilgrim's laconic account, though, as we have seen, he omits all reference to Calvary, and emphasizes the importance of the Sepulchre.
So first of all, as the head of the whole complex, he adorned the holy cave, that divine memorial at which the radiant angel announced publicly the rebirth revealed through the Saviour. So the Emperor in his generosity began by decorating it, as the head of the whole, with choice pillars and abundant ornamentation, embellishing it with every kind of splendour. (Vit. Const. 3.33–4)
Ample archaeological evidence indicates a chamber with a pointed roof fronted by a railed balcony, from which, according to Egeria's description, the bishop addressed the neophytes. It was set in a ‘vast space in the open air’, which was paved and surrounded with a portico on three sides (Vit. Const. 3.35). On the fourth side, opposite the cave, lay the basilica.
It was an extraordinary work, raised to an immense height, with its length and breadth extended to the full. The inner walls of the building were covered with sheets of polychrome marble; the outer face of the walls gleamed with polished stone fitted together at the joints, and made a wonderfully beautiful sight in no way inferior to the appearance of marble. Overhead on the roof, lead formed a protective covering for the outer structure, as an effective protection against the winter rains; the inner surface of the ceilings was fitted with carved panels, which were fitted together and covered all over with shining gold, so that like a great sea they extended over the whole basilica, and made the whole temple seem to shine with glittering lights. (Vit. Const. 3.36)
Two lines of pillars ran along each side of the church, and to the east three gates opened on to a colonnaded courtyard; its outer gates, ‘exquisitely decorated’, gave on to the forum, and ‘afforded passers by an astonishing glimpse of what was to be seen within’ (Vit. Const. 3.39).
At the opposite end from the doors, as the head of the whole building, a dome extended over the top of the basilica. It was encircled by twelve columns: the same number as the Saviour's apostles. The tops of the columns were adorned with huge silver bowls, a beautiful offering which the Emperor had made personally to his God. (Vit. Const. 3.38)
Reconstructions which depict this dome as if it were the customary curving roof of an apse are misleading. Eusebius’ word for dome is hemisphairon, a hemisphere; the curved ceiling of an apse would be only a quarter-sphere. Moreover, if my translation is correct, the dome ‘extended over the top of the basilica’ (ep’ akrou tou basileiou ektetamenon), which is not an accurate description of the curved roof of an apse. Telfer's suggestion that the dome is a baldachin built over the altar and rising up to the roof is less faithful to the Greek, which suggests a dome over the highest part of the building. Gibson and Taylor, following H.A.Drake, suggest that the purpose of the dome was ‘to enshrine the place, somewhere beneath the apse or altar, where the wood of the cross was discovered’; this might be the explanation of the strange alignment of the buildings. If all this is correct, the dome which is a prominent feature in two early representations of the buildings, namely the apsidal mosaic of S. Pudenziana at Rome (c. 400) and the Madaba Map (sixth century; see cover photo) would be this crowning dome which dominated the Martyrium.
Although the Bordeaux Pilgrim and Eusebius both make it clear that the Tomb stood in the open air, by the time of Egeria's visit in the 380s it had been contained within a separate building known as the resurrection (Anastasis). Gibson and Taylor point out that the traditional view that this new chapel was a rotunda crowned with a dome has no evidence to support it; these features cannot be attested until the reconstruction by Monomachus in the eleventh century.
The archaeological evidence suggests that it was a semicircular building. Since, according to our analysis of the Madaba mosaic, it is not shown there, it is likely that the Anastasis was not especially high or imposing…The roof may have been fairly flat, like that of both the Arian and Orthodox baptistries in Ravenna.
However, though Gibson and Taylor may be right about the roof, they cite no conclusive evidence for the semi-circular shape, which would apparently leave too little space for large congregations to meet in front of the Tomb, as the liturgy required. It seems to me more likely that the Anastasis was a circular, low-roofed structure (see Figure 2). As it would be surprising if the Madaba Map did omit so important a building, one wonders whether it might be represented out of position to the right of the dome, as there was no space to fit it in the correct position on the mosaic?
How then are the two mosaic representations to be interpreted? The domed building to the left of the S.Pudenziana mosaic has been identified as (a) the hypothetical Rotunda added over the Tomb (L.H.Vincent); (b) the circular Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives, known as the Imbomon (W.Pullan); (c) the apse of the Martyrium (K.J.Conant); (d) a complete dome over the sanctuary of the Martyrium let into the roof of the church (Gibson and Taylor). Pullan ingeniously suggests that the outer viewpoint of the Rotunda does not feature in the Pudenziana mosaic because it depicts schematically its curved interior, with the risen Christ on his throne replacing the Tomb; this would however presuppose a high degree of artistic sophistication in a Roman congregation if they were to understand the mosaic in this way. The apparently octagonal building to the right of the mosaic Pullan and some others take to be the octagonal shrine at the west end of the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem. However, the Bethlehem shrine was attached to the main basilica, whereas the building in the mosaic is free-standing. Could it possibly be the Tomb or a domeless Anastasis? Evidently the last word on the subject has not yet been said.
As we have seen, Eusebius makes no mention of Golgotha or the finding of the Cross. Walker suggests various reasons for this silence: as a scientific historian Eusebius was not convinced that what was found was the real Cross; he was reluctant to do anything which might enhance the influence of Jerusalem over against Caesarea. Perhaps a more significant explanation can be found in Eusebius’ theology, which emphasizes the resurrection rather than the crucifixion: for him the site is ‘the place of the saving resurrection’, ‘that wonderful memorial of immortality’ (Vit. Const. 3.25, 26). In fact, he tells us that Constantine's plan was to construct a new Jerusalem confronting (antiprosopos) and opposite (antikrus) the old one, with the Tomb as the Holy of Holies. J.Wilkinson suggests that this was the controlling idea in the construction of the buildings, though subsequent generations lost sight of it.
Cyril's Letter to Constantius indicates that the discovery of the Cross seems to have occurred some time during the clearing of the site and the construction of the Martyrium.
In the time of your blessed father Constantine of happy memory, the saving wood of the cross was found in Jerusalem when God's grace rewarded the piety of his noble search with the discovery of the hidden holy places, (ad Const. 3)
As we have seen, Constantine's intention to honour the ‘saving sign’ confirms the view that the cross was found at this time. The tradition that it was Helen who made the discovery does not appear until the works of Ambrose at the end of the fourth century; later still legends were recounted about the ingenious methods which she used to make the identification. (Excavations indicate that the present subterranean chapels of St Helen and the Finding of the Cross were not part of Constantine's design, but were simply a natural hollow which the builders filled with rubble (cf. GT 76).) But how was the Cross identified? Ambrose speaks about the honour which Constantine paid to Christ's nails. Was it the discovery of wood and nails together which made Constantine so sure that what was found was indeed the ‘token’ of the Passion?
For a description of the way Constantine's builders decorated the rock of Calvary we have to look beyond Eusebius. The rock was situated at the south-eastern corner of the open space between the Martyrium and the Tomb. The builders left enough of the original rock visible for Cyril to be able to speak of:
Golgotha here, the pre-eminent, which is still visible today and still shows how the rocks were split because of Christ that day. (Cat. 13.39)
By Egeria's time (37.1) this rock was crowned by a cross, which is presumably to be identified with the jewelled cross of the Pudenziana mosaic; she describes how the bishop's throne could be set up there, which is perhaps what the mosaic depicts, with Christ taking the place of the bishop. The whole area was given the name of ‘Before the Cross’. Egeria also refers to an area ‘behind the cross’; scholars debate whether this name refers to the whole Martyrium or a special small chapel.